Supreme Court Flashcards
(31 cards)
Robert Bork nomination
1987
- failed in senate 42-58
appointments process allows only good justices to be confirmed
Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination
1993
- Clinton
- confirmed 96-3
before party lines affected voting
John Roberts nomination
2005
- 78-22
- start of political swing
- most ‘no’ votes since clarence Thomas
politicisation of court due to politicisation of appointment’s process
Harriet Miers failed nomination
2005
- Bush nominated
- withdrew due to fear of senate not confirming her due to underqualification
politicisation of the supreme court
Merrick Garland failed nomination
2016
- 8 months before new election
- R senate argued Obama’s mandate not strong enough, should be left to next pres
politicisation of the supreme court due to appointment’s process
Brett Kavanaugh confirmation
2018
- accused of sexual assault
- confirmed 50-48 along party lines
politicisation of supreme court
Amy Conet Barret confirmation
2020
- Trump, confirmed 52-48
- came 3 months before new election, R senate rushed to pass her through
- complete contradiction to Merrick Garland
politicisation of SC
Kentanji Brown Jackson confirmation
2022
- Biden, confirmed 53-47 (3 R votes)
- first black woman to be appointed to the SC
voted pretty much along party lines, politicisation of SC
Massachusetts v EPA
2007
- ruled EPA had right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Clean Air Act
SC intervention in public policy
DeFunis v Odegaard
1974
- court held case had become moot
supreme court effective at judicial review
Poe v Ullman
1961
- court dismissed case as unripe as law banning contraception basically dead
Griswold v connecticut
1965
- recognised right to privacy and ruled connecticut law banning contraception unconstitutional
- birth control clinic shut down due to law
effective at protecting individual rights
Bakke v California
1978
- affirmative action legal so long as it is not the only consideration
- racial quotas violated 14th amendment
- enforced in gratz v bollinger, grutter v bollinger
**protecting individual rights & affirmative action **
intervening in public policy
SFFA v Harvard
2022
- court ruled that affirmative action was illegal under equal protection clause of 14th amendment
- overturned bakke v university of california
judicial activism, dissent of stare decisis
politicisation of the court
Arizona v US
2012
- struck down controversial immigration law
- ruling immigration enforcement was a duty of the federal government
SC strengthening power of federal gov
Department of Homeland Security v Regents of the University of California
2020
- ruled that trump’s actions to rescind DACA were ‘arbitary and capricious’
intervening in public policy
politicisation
judicial activism - one of Trump’s main pledges was immigration reform
Trump v Hawaii
2018
- SC upheld Muslim travel ban
court deference to executive in public policy
Roe v Wade
1973
- ruled that right to abortion was protected under right to privacy in 14th amendment
politicisation of SC
intervention in public policy
Dobbs v Jackson
2022
- overturned Roe, arguing right to abortion not protected under constitution
dissent against stare decisis, intervention in public policy
Hamdan v Rumsfeld
2006
- military comissions set up by Bush to try detainees were unconstitutional and violated geneva convention
individual rights protection
Boumediene v Bush
2008
- ruled that guatanamo bay detainees had right to file habeas corpus under constitution
- overturned Military Comissions Act - intended to limit judicial review of detainees
protection of individual rights
NFIB v Sebellius
2012
- upheld individual mandate of ACA
- overturned mandatory medicaid expansion
- vote split along ideological lines, excl Roberts
protecting court legitimacy avoiding politically explosive rulings
judicial restraint
politicisation of court
NLRB v Noel Canning
2014
- ruled that Obama’s appointments to the National Labour Relations Board were unconstitutional
- reduced president’s ability to make temporary appointments without senate approval
checks on the executive
Trump v Mazars
2020
- congress could subpeona Trump’s financial records
- investigation standards must be higher when investigating a sitting president
limit on congressional power to harass president
